Carbs, protein and retaining water

[ketodog]

<RRM>This thread is a spin off from this thread</RRM>

ketodog wrote:
Could it be that the carbs I eat go almost entirely to the muscle tissue

Sure, thats normal after intense physical activity.

So if I don´t eat more carbs than what my muscles need to replenish glycogen, my liver will not store glycogen, due to significant increased glycogen resynthesis in skeletal muscle, right?

and then during the rest of the time my other tissues utilize mainly stored fat?

No, because you always need sugars as well. They come from dietary protein, liver glycogen, muscle protein and fat (glycerol). You cant avoid that.

So how could it be that when I experimented with eating fruit (both with and without fats) outside the post-worrkout window I felt ups and lows in energy, and not a stable-energy feeling as I feel now. Eating fruit right after my training sessions is like being on a low-carb diet while enjoying the benefits of carbs to sustain performance and recovery.

In the past, with very low carb intakes, I could never be so ripped and feel energetic at the same time.

Consuming less protein you retain less water, which makes you more ripped, but it isnt the fat flying off your body; its water.

Just to clarify, I have been doing this for more than 2 weeks, not just a few days, and believe me, it´s not all water but also body fat. Maybe you thought that I was refering to just 5 days of ¨fat flying off he body¨, which of course, is not possible.

And what about the fact that people in the inital days of a high-protein low-carb diet (i.e. Atkins) lose mostly water weight? Doesn´t every gram of glucose attract between 2-3 grams of water?

Don´t get me wrong, I have experienced water loss too when following Wai´s diet and I was coming from something similar to the SAD diet, but besides a lower protein and sodium intake could it be that processed carbs and fiber retain more water than fruit and that THEY are the main responsibles of water retention and bloating rather than high-protein intakes?

Also, body-builders are interested in looking rípped, and they always mantain high-protein intakes even during cutting phases.

If you are consuming a little too little calories, its muscle protein as well.

I decreased protein intake while eating a little bit more of fat, and I didn´t experience any appreciable muscle loss, keeping exercise volume the same.

Really, the theoretical backround of my situation is just for satisfying my curiousity, but I am happy that taking info from different places (including this web site and I am very grateful for that ) I have found something that works right for my body and lifestyle.

[RRM]

if I don´t eat more carbs than what my muscles need to replenish glycogen, my liver will not store glycogen, due to significant increased glycogen resynthesis in skeletal muscle, right?

Synthesis of liver- and muscle-glycogen happen simultanously, as liver glycogen is essential in keeping the blood sugar level up.

how could it be that when I experimented with eating fruit (both with and without fats) outside the post-worrkout window I felt ups and lows in energy, and not a stable-energy feeling as I feel now.

As that depends on not just what you eat, but also very much on the frequency of your food intake.

In the past, with very low carb intakes, I could never be so ripped and feel energetic at the same time.

Thats because you retained more water, which hides your muscles.

it´s not all water but also body fat.

You can lose bodyfat on any diet. Particularly retaining less water has spectacular effects.

what about the fact that people in the inital days of a high-protein low-carb diet (i.e. Atkins) lose mostly water weight?

I dont know whether that is factual correct. It may be a 'generally established truth' for those who do that diet, but is it really correct?

Doesn´t every gram of glucose attract between 2-3 grams of water?

What subsequently matters, is how much the blood-glucose levels can fluctuate (difference between high- and low-blood sugar), which is only 39%, whereas blood protein levels (amino acids) fluctuate from 100 (alanine) up to 900% (cysteine).

could it be that processed carbs and fiber retain more water than fruit and that THEY are the main responsibles of water retention and bloating rather than high-protein intakes?

Processed carbs is broken down in glucose, and the blood glucose level is strictly regulated (unlike protein levels)
Fiber is not absorbed in the blood / lymphe, and can therefore not cause water retention of the skin. Fiber can only cause bloating of the intestinal tract, not the skin.

Also, body-builders are interested in looking rípped, and they always mantain high-protein intakes even during cutting phases.

Prior to contests they use drugs to drain away the water. This has caused fatalities in the past.

If you are consuming a little too little calories, its muscle protein as well.

I decreased protein intake while eating a little bit more of fat, and I didn´t experience any appreciable muscle loss, keeping exercise volume the same.

I said calories, you said protein (and fat).; your response has nothing to do with my remark.

I have found something that works right for my body and lifestyle

Im happy for you

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

if I don´t eat more carbs than what my muscles need to replenish glycogen, my liver will not store glycogen, due to significant increased glycogen resynthesis in skeletal muscle, right?

Synthesis of liver- and muscle-glycogen happen simultanously, as liver glycogen is essential in keeping the blood sugar level up.

True. But if I consume carbs WHEN my body (muscles) need the energy, liver glycogen will be broken down to keep blood-glucose level up, right?

So now, my first statement makes sense or not?

how could it be that when I experimented with eating fruit (both with and without fats) outside the post-worrkout window I felt ups and lows in energy, and not a stable-energy feeling as I feel now.

As that depends on not just what you eat, but also very much on the frequency of your food intake.

Right, but remember that I have experimented both with big and small meals (fruit+fat) and in both cases I felt ups and lows in energy. Maybe someday I should give the small meal approach another try, due that probably my glycemic control is much better now than in the past because of my current volume of physical activity.

In the past, with very low carb intakes, I could never be so ripped and feel energetic at the same time.

Thats because you retained more water, which hides your muscles.

This is interesting. So can really dietary protein have such a great effect on water retention? Have you experimented with the Wai diet but eating 100 grams of raw protein daily and noticed water retention?

what about the fact that people in the inital days of a high-protein low-carb diet (i.e. Atkins) lose mostly water weight?

I dont know whether that is factual correct. It may be a 'generally established truth' for those who do that diet, but is it really correct?

Yes, in the low-carb community is a well known effect of low-carb diets, as they cannot be losing so much fat in such a short period of time.

I don´t know, this is curious, because both low-carb diets and the Wai diet make your body to lose excessive water. Now, what do both have in common? Lack of processed carbohydrates and starches.

There´s some evidence that starches can be absorbed entirely to the bloodstream, and maybe the can cause water retention.

PMID: 2273756

PMID: 8415433

PMID: 1890981

The links didn´t work so I just put the PubMed numbers.

There´s also study that seems interesting about starches and persorption from Herbst-Volkheimer but it´s in german

Processed carbs is broken down in glucose, and the blood glucose level is strictly regulated (unlike protein levels)
Fiber is not absorbed in the blood / lymphe, and can therefore not cause water retention of the skin. Fiber can only cause bloating of the intestinal tract, not the skin.

So maybe blood-starch as the cause of water retention together with high-protein intake?

RRM, did you ever had a binge on refined carbs and see how water you can retain? It´s incredible. But no matter how much fruit one can eat, water will not be retained.

The low-carb community blames carbs for causing water retention and disease, without differentiating simple sugars (fruits) from wheat flour. I would blame undigested starch as the cause. Remember to mention my name if you don´t consider my theory to be utter rubbish and decide to publish it in a medical journal

Prior to contests they use drugs to drain away the water. This has caused fatalities in the past.

Are you saying that body builders can pack on muscle with much less protein - making sure they eat enough - and still look muscular but more ripped?

[ketodog]

If I remember well, insulin affects sodium excretion. So, another and more likely possibility than starches is the hyperinsulinemia effect provoked by ingesting too much carbs when people don´t need the energy. As that happens only with refined crap, not fruit, that´s why people lose water when eliminating junk from their diets.

[RRM]

But if I consume carbs WHEN my body (muscles) need the energy, liver glycogen will be broken down to keep blood-glucose level up, right?

No, then ingested carbs will keep the blood sugar level up, as they will be converted to liver- and muscle-glycogen as well.

that I have experimented both with big and small meals (fruit+fat) and in both cases I felt ups and lows in energy.

Then you didnt do it right, as with fruits its perfectly possible to keep your blood sugar level at exactly the right level.

can really dietary protein have such a great effect on water retention?

Absolutely. I can see it on my skin after consuming too much protein in just one day.

Have you experimented with the Wai diet but eating 100 grams of raw protein daily and noticed water retention?

100 grams of raw protein indeed always makes my skin retain too much water. (Combined with fruits protein, of course) I can maximally consume 27 gram protein from fish (about 133 gram) / egg yolks.

Yes, in the low-carb community is a well known effect of low-carb diets, as they cannot be losing so much fat in such a short period of time.

So, its not a fact, as lost stool can easily make up for that loss.

There´s some evidence that starches can be absorbed entirely to the bloodstream, and maybe the can cause water retention.

In the articles you mentioned, it says "microparticles" or "granules" (small particles).
They do not at all suggest that this might lead to a substantial increase in the (these particles are 'sugar-like') blood sugar level. (hence no water retention) 'Just' to allergic like reactions (in people who are allergic to those particles) or to blocking small blood vessels.
Thats a whole different sclae.

There´s also study that seems interesting about starches and persorption from Herbst-Volkheimer but it´s in german

Where is it? I can read german.

So maybe blood-starch as the cause of water retention together with high-protein intake?

No, as these particles belong to the sugar family; their level is strictly regulated.
If your theory would be correct, I would retain water by eating fruits, while the opposite is the case.

RRM, did you ever had a binge on refined carbs and see how water you can retain? It´s incredible.

Sure, I did, but it never made me retain water.
Again, your body does not allow elevated blood sugar levels (outside the accepted, narrow margins).

Are you saying that body builders can pack on muscle with much less protein - making sure they eat enough - and still look muscular but more ripped?

No, you cannot do naturally what they achieve with these drugs and extremely high protein intakes. (regarding both muscle gain and water drainage)

[johndela1]

Are you saying that body builders can pack on muscle with much less protein - making sure they eat enough - and still look muscular but more ripped?

You know build builders have to peak for contests and photo shoots.

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

But if I consume carbs WHEN my body (muscles) need the energy, liver glycogen will be broken down to keep blood-glucose level up, right?

No, then ingested carbs will keep the blood sugar level up, as they will be converted to liver- and muscle-glycogen as well.

That´s true, of course. I apologize, I didn´t explain myself clearly enough. What I mean is that if I stop ingesting carbs during the workout and continue exercising, blood glucose level will drop and only liver glycogen - not muscle glycogen - can be broken down to normalize it, right?

But if I continue exercising and stop ingesting carbs, muscle glycogen will be used too, so the idea of replenishing ONLY muscle glycogen and not liver glycogen is nonsense, right?

Yes, in the low-carb community is a well known effect of low-carb diets, as they cannot be losing so much fat in such a short period of time.

So, its not a fact, as lost stool can easily make up for that loss.

Come on RRM, are you really suggesting that all the people who go from the SAD to low-carb diets experience initial weight-loss because of lost stool and not because they are losing water?

The facts are that both people who go from the SAD to the Wai diet or to a low-carb diet experience water loss. And it is curious that many who go from the SAD to low-carb are eating MORE protein after the change in diet.

So there has to be something in the diets most people normally eat that causes water retention. Something that is absent both in the Wai diet and in a low-carb high-fat high-protein diet.

It could be:
1. Hormone related/hyperglycemia
2. Undigested starches in the blood?

No, as these particles belong to the sugar family; their level is strictly regulated.
If your theory would be correct, I would retain water by eating fruits, while the opposite is the case.

As usual, I apologize, as there seems to be a great level of miscommunication between us. Maybe I am not clear enough, and this is also worst because english isn´t my 1st language.

I am refering to undigested starch that has escaped cooking and digestion mainly from wheat flour. Simple sugars and blood-glucose levels is not what I was refering to.
Fruit - with the exception of bananas (3%) don´t contain starch.
So fruit doesn´t increase blood levels of undigested starch. The study showed that starches from flour did.

Where is it? I can read german.

If you have a supbscription to PuMed, you can read it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=8470407

[RRM]

if I stop ingesting carbs during the workout and continue exercising, blood glucose level will drop and only liver glycogen - not muscle glycogen - can be broken down to normalize it, right?

Yes.

But if I continue exercising and stop ingesting carbs, muscle glycogen will be used too, so the idea of replenishing ONLY muscle glycogen and not liver glycogen is nonsense, right?

Yes.

are you really suggesting that all the people who go from the SAD to low-carb diets experience initial weight-loss because of lost stool and not because they are losing water?

Not until it is really determined that it is actually water (by very solid reasoning or scientific study), I will believe that.
Many of such 'ideas/notions' are not true; i dont just accept it as true because most people do.

The facts are that both people who go from the SAD to the Wai diet or to a low-carb diet experience water loss.

To Wai I know its a fact.
For the former to believe, I need some solid reasoning first.

there has to be something in the diets most people normally eat that causes water retention. Something that is absent both in the Wai diet and in a low-carb high-fat high-protein diet.

I dont agree.
Just show me that it make sense first.

It could be:
1. Hormone related/hyperglycemia
2. Undigested starches in the blood?

I am refering to undigested starch that has escaped cooking and digestion mainly from wheat flour.

Starch is lots of glucose molecules linked to eachother in a long chain.
Our body also links glucose molecules to eachother, which are subject to strict regulation.

If you have a supbscription to PuMed, you can read it.

I dont.

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

Not until it is really determined that it is actually water (by very solid reasoning or scientific study), I will believe that.
Many of such 'ideas/notions' are not true; i dont just accept it as true because most people do.

You are right. Many ¨well-known medical facts¨ are outright lies or hoaxes. But here´s something I have found.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/exs150-p/150HOhighprotein.pdf

¨In a study comparing an 800-calorie mixed diet with an 800-calorie low-carbohydrate, high fat diet, 10-day weight loss was 4.6 kg on the ketogenic diet and 2.8 kg on the mixed diet. Energy-nitrogen balanced studies documented that the difference in weight lost was all accounted for by losses in total body water.¨

Yang MU, Van Itallie TB. Composition of weight lost during short-term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 1976;starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 1976;

But what about studies showing water retention from high protein intakes?
Just because someone breaks out doesn´t prove he is retaining water, right? I tried to find something about water retention and high protein intakes but I couldn´t find nothing at all. Only that I am more ripped with not so high protein intakes, but if calories are not measured accurately, how do I know if I am more slim because of less water or simply because that excessive protein I was eating was converted to fat in adippose tissue?

Starch is lots of glucose molecules linked to eachother in a long chain.

True.

Our body also links glucose molecules to eachother, which are subject to strict regulation.

Yes, but only plants form starch (it´s their form of carbohydrate energy store). Animals form glycogen but it´s not circulating through the blood either, but stored. Only glucose obtained from glycogen breakdown is present in the blood. Human blood isn´t prepared to cope with starch, don´t you think?

What about hyperinsulinemia and water retention? Could that explain the diuretic effect of carbohydrate restriction?

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

If you have a supbscription to PuMed, you can read it.

I dont.

Me either. I thought that maybe you were subscribed to Pubmed, based on the fact that many studies on Waisays can be found there. When writing the web site, did you and Wai went to a medical library to trace the full- text version of the studies?

As I am not subscribed to any medical journal I like to go to a medical library to see the study if there is an abstract in the web that I have found interesting.

[ketodog]

The photo on the bottom of this page is from Anthony Colpo, independant researcher and author of The Great Cholesterol Con. This guy eats in excess of 200 grams of protein (more than 1.2 kilograms of meat per day). I don´t think he is retaining water.

http://www.healthmyths.net/colpo.html

[RRM]

¨In a study comparing an 800-calorie mixed diet with an 800-calorie low-carbohydrate, high fat diet, 10-day weight loss was 4.6 kg on the ketogenic diet and 2.8 kg on the mixed diet. Energy-nitrogen balanced studies documented that the difference in weight lost was all accounted for by losses in total body water.¨

A 800 kcal diet is very extreem. In these conditions, your metabolism changes, so that we dont know what attributed to that extra loss of water.
It may be a number of interactions with hormones or minerals and what else?
Consuming enough calories, in our experience people retaining water is in accordance with their protein intake.

Just because someone breaks out doesn´t prove he is retaining water, right?

True, but you can actually see the difference. (your skin retaining more water)

Only that I am more ripped with not so high protein intakes, but if calories are not measured accurately, how do I know if I am more slim because of less water or simply because that excessive protein I was eating was converted to fat in adippose tissue?

Extra adipose fat does not make the skin retain more water.
You can see the difference in your skin too.
Maybe you can start accurately measuring your energy intake and switch between high protein and low protein to find out what the difference in skin tone is?

Only glucose obtained from glycogen breakdown is present in the blood.

Not true. Also glucose from the intestinal tract (including from starches) is taken up in the blood.

Human blood isn´t prepared to cope with starch, don´t you think?

It is. Not all larger moecules (such as proteins and starches) are completely broken down into single amino acids and glucose, so that fragments (peptides and short chains of glucose) are taken up as well, and all these are subject to regulating processes.

What about hyperinsulinemia and water retention? Could that explain the diuretic effect of carbohydrate restriction?

Only in 'non-healthy' (hyperinsulineamic) subjects.

The photo on the bottom of this page is from Anthony Colpo, independant researcher and author of The Great Cholesterol Con. This guy eats in excess of 200 grams of protein (more than 1.2 kilograms of meat per day). I don´t think he is retaining water.

Why not?
His body fat may be very low. Consuming a low protein diet and still having equally low body fat, he might be even a little more ripped.

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

A 800 kcal diet is very extreem.

Here´s another study done with a 1340 kcal diet. It´s also low-calorie diet but it has some interesting things.

http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/users/jyelon/l ... opic0.html

¨they got 21 people, gave 7 of them a diet with lots of carbs, 7 a diet with lots of vegetable oil, and 7 a diet with lots of butter. All groups got 1340 calories per day. All groups lost the same amount of water weight.¨
¨When calculated cumulatively, sodium excretion during the first 7 days was significantly greater on the low-carbohydrate diet, whereas after 28 days the total amount of sodium excreted was highest on the high-carbohydrate diet. Potassium excretion during the low-carbohydrate diets was significantly greater for as long as 14 days, but at the end of the experimental period the observed differences no longer attained statistical significance. At no time did the intake and loss of fluid and the balances calculated therefrom show significant differences. From the findings obtained it appears that the alterations in the water and electrolyte balance observed during the low-carbohydrate diets are reversible phenomena and should thus not be regarded as causal agents of the different weight reduction.¨

Consuming enough calories, in our experience people retaining water is in accordance with their protein intake.

The experience of people swithching from a high-carb to a low-carb diet shows that for some reason a standard diet rich in refined carbohydrates promotoes water retention, despite not being particularly high in protein. My experience is in line with this observations too. When I have a binge on refined carbs, I retain water in my skin and I become bloated.

True, but you can actually see the difference. (your skin retaining more water)

So if you consume too much fish you can note a difference in the tone of your skin? Interesting.

Maybe you can start accurately measuring your energy intake and switch between high protein and low protein to find out what the difference in skin tone is?

Yes, that´s a good idea. If you are really right on this one, that is if I find out that with lower protein intakes I can be more ripped while mantainin muscle, I definitively have to admit that you and Wai are very intelligent people and that most guys on the athlete world suck. No kidding, seriously.

Not true. Also glucose from the intestinal tract (including from starches) is taken up in the blood.

Of course! I mean that starches in high amounts are not a normal physiologic phenomena, especially if we consider our natural foods - certainly not food rich in starches.

It is. Not all larger moecules (such as proteins and starches) are completely broken down into single amino acids and glucose, so that fragments (peptides and short chains of glucose) are taken up as well, and all these are subject to regulating processes.

Fragments composed of glucose-like molecules and tiny amounts of starch is not the same as the persorption phenomena observed in the studies where people were fed starch-rich foods.

Anyway, we both agree that starch-rich foods (wheat flour, potatoes, etc.) are not meant for human consumption. Pigs can cope better with that stuff, as their intestinal amilase enzymes prove it. A pig can digest raw corn!

So really I don´t want starch in my body as a regular situation, as most people are doing every day by eating all the garbage they eat!

[RRM]

All groups got 1340 calories per day.

Thats still an extreme diet.

The experience of people swithching from a high-carb to a low-carb diet shows that for some reason a standard diet rich in refined carbohydrates promotoes water retention

The Wai diet IS a high carb diet, and it eliminates water retention.
Sometimes its high in refined sugars as well, and still eliminates water retention.

When I have a binge on refined carbs, I retain water in my skin and I become bloated.

Well, we always did acknowledge that blood sugar levels in some people are less strictly regulated. Maybe you are one of them?

So if you consume too much fish you can note a difference in the tone of your skin? Interesting.

Yes. Within hours.

So really I don´t want starch in my body as a regular situation, as most people are doing every day by eating all the garbage they eat!

Sure, but not all starch is bad. Bananas contain starch too, though i admit that to me they taste best when most of the starch has been broken down to free glucose (browning).

[ketodog]

RRM wrote:

The Wai diet IS a high carb diet, and it eliminates water retention.

It may be relatively high in carbs, but they are not overeaten as in the SAD. Maybe overeating causing hyperinsulinemia is the key.

Sometimes its high in refined sugars as well, and still eliminates water retention.

Of course. Refined sugars if not combined with appettite enhancers from wheat/milk or cooked garbage aren´t addictive. The proof is that OJ or water + sugar cannot be overeaten if you don´t need the energy.

So if you consume too much fish you can note a difference in the tone of your skin? Interesting.

Yes. Within hours.

I have just ate a lot of protein in one sitting. Which places of my body should I be watching with more attention for changes in the tone of my skin?

Sure, but not all starch is bad. Bananas contain starch too,

Yes, but in meaningless amounts (3%) when compared to foods which aren´t meant for human consumption, such as non-paleo stuff like potatoes, wheat, rice, corn, etc.

though i admit that to me they taste best when most of the starch has been broken down to free glucose (browning).

I agree. They taste much better to me too when they are ripe.